4. The split idea would (a) do nothing and (b) would be an admission of weakness. Notice that Apple's tech brethren GOOG and AMZN have been going onward and upward without any such machinations.
I think there's a ton of FUD driving the stock price down, and once you become a "hated" stock it doesn't take much to trigger a sell off. I'd like to see Apple do more to change this narrative. Maybe Cook and team have something up their sleeves and we'll all be blown away later this year. I hope so.
I think there's a ton of FUD driving the stock price down, and once you become a "hated" stock it doesn't take much to trigger a sell off. I'd like to see Apple do more to change this narrative. Maybe Cook and team have something up their sleeves and we'll all be blown away later this year. I hope so.
Now, Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of this hat!
What in the world is your problem? Either write actual rebuttals or don't expect your posts to stay up, much less you be taken seriously ever again in the future.
Originally Posted by igriv
1. It IS Cook's job to manage shareholder value. It is his ONLY job.
And right off the bat, wrong.
2. Saying "they are considering what to do with the money" does say that they are aware there is a problem
No, nowhere in that does it state or imply anything about a "problem".
3. Handing it out is far from stupid. The Einhorn proposal or a buyback might be more intelligent, that's true, but it does not mean that upping the dividend is stupid.
"Handing it out" ? "upping the dividend". Note the character I used before writing your reply. That way you'll know exactly how far to move the goalposts.
…AMZN have been going onward and upward without any such machinations.
What in the world is your problem? Either write actual rebuttals or don't expect your posts to stay up, much less you be taken seriously ever again in the future.
There are people on this forum that we take seriously?
What in the world is your problem? Either write actual rebuttals or don't expect your posts to stay up, much less you be taken seriously ever again in the future.
And right off the bat, wrong.
No, nowhere in that does it state or imply anything about a "problem".
"Handing it out" ? "upping the dividend". Note the character I used before writing your reply. That way you'll know exactly how far to move the goalposts.
Also without any such profits.
First paragraph: Why don't you look at the message (your own, no less) I was responding to. Do you think of it as a profound commentary?
Second paragraph: Repeat after me: "I disagree with your assessment". If you keep writing garbage as fact, don't expect your posts to stay up, much less you be taken seriously ever again in the future.
Third paragraph: Whatever. I guess having most of the people paying your salary up in arms does not count as a problem.
Fourth paragraph: WTF are you talking about?
Fifth: Yes, exactly. That's how much people distrust Apple management. Apparently they trust Larry Page a lot more, and Jeff Bezos a lot more still. You don't think of this as a problem, of course. Apple is just a victim of evil hedge fund managers, and the management team are a bunch of fucking genius angels. I bet the dog had a tendency to eat your homework way back in the day.
I think there's a ton of FUD driving the stock price down, and once you become a "hated" stock it doesn't take much to trigger a sell off. I'd like to see Apple do more to change this narrative. Maybe Cook and team have something up their sleeves and we'll all be blown away later this year. I hope so.
I thought Cook would unveil a plan in the last quarter but here we are starting the next one.
For me that doesn't matter... at the moment... I gave it until the end of the year for Cook to prove his worth to me. If he doesn't then I think we can expect the stock to drop into the low 300s. April 23rd will tell us if AAPL will head to the high 300s or the low 500s.
Second paragraph: Repeat after me: "I disagree with your assessment". If you keep writing garbage as fact, don't expect your posts to stay up, much less you be taken seriously ever again in the future.
You claimed a CEO has no responsibility but to his shareholders. That's so utterly vacuous that if it needs clarification on why it's wrong you shouldn't be talking about this stuff in the first place.
Third paragraph: Whatever. I guess having most of the people paying your salary up in arms does not count as a problem.
Are you honestly implying that shareholders "pay the salaries" of Apple employees? Not, you know, their ludicrous sales and revenues? The part of the company that actually matters, that is. The part that is an actual company.
Fourth paragraph: WTF are you talking about?
Fine. Don't do the work. It's called "not identical to".
Fifth: Yes, exactly. That's how much people distrust Apple management. Apparently they trust Larry Page a lot more, and Jeff Bezos a lot more still.
So… a company that consistently brings in billions in profits and which is constantly growing its platform is "trusted less" than a company that is posting losses and which has a bunch of loose ends? Sure it is¡
I bet the dog had a tendency to eat your homework way back in the day.
What does this even mean within the context of anything relevant?
Fidelity sold 1.13 million shares in the period from January through February. That is just one institution for only a two month period. If we assume they received about $450 per share on average, that amounts to $508.5 million. What split do you envision which would entice enough individuals to replace
that size of institutional investment, let alone all the other institutional investments? Or never mind replacing it. How many investors at what price would
even make a dent? If you are going to continue promoting a split as helping AAPL's price, you should provide some numbers explaining why.
No one ever claimed that it would be a 1 for 1 replacement for Fidelity, so please stop making stupid straw man arguments.
I believe it would help (and most people who study the market would agree). I never said how much it would help. It might make up for 10% of what Fidelity sold or it might be 5 times what Fidelity sold. But it is clear that it would help. It would bring some people into the market who do not currently buy Apple stock. That would apply upward pressure to the price. I don't think there's anyone who could predict how much, but it would help.
You have stated that you believe it would be beneficial for the performance of AAPL if the proportion of stock owned by individuals was increased relative to the proportion owned by institutions. If you don't replace the institutionally owned shares with individual investor owned shares by at least one to one, how are you going to change the relative proportions? I was really asking you to justify your own argument more than making a new one of my own. Call it a straw man if you want, as long as you take ownership.
While we are making citation-free assertions, I would posit that most people who study markets believe stock splits don't accomplish anything.
I fully recognize that you have not said how much a split would help. That is the whole problem with your post and why I replied to it. I think if
you would take the trouble of trying some hypothetical numbers, you would see that any help from attracting micro-investors is going to be negligible to
a company with a market cap the size of Apple. (e.g. one million micro-investors spending $100 per year on AAPL amounts to $100,000,000 or about
.025% of Apple's current market cap)
The qualitative observation that a stock split would attract new investors is not worth much, even if true, if those new investments don't budge the performance
of AAPL. The vehemence with which some people cling to the idea of a stock split gives the impression they feel it is some kind of panacea. It is not.
4. The split idea would (a) do nothing and (b) would be an admission of weakness. Notice that Apple's tech brethren GOOG and AMZN have been going onward and upward without any such machinations.
Google did announce a split back in June 2012, but it has not been executed due to lawsuits over the new shares' lack of voting rights.
You claimed a CEO has no responsibility but to his shareholders. That's so utterly vacuous that if it needs clarification on why it's wrong you shouldn't be talking about this stuff in the first place.
Are you honestly implying that shareholders "pay the salaries" of Apple employees? Not, you know, their ludicrous sales and revenues? The part of the company that actually matters, that is. The part that is an actual company.
Fine. Don't do the work. It's called "not identical to".
So… a company that consistently brings in billions in profits and which is constantly growing its platform is "trusted less" than a company that is posting losses and which has a bunch of loose ends? Sure it is¡
What does this even mean within the context of anything relevant?
The first paragraph and the second paragraph: The money the company brings in belongs to... wait for it... the shareholders. The shareholders are happy if the management uses it to bring in even more money. The shareholders are sad if the company brings in a lot of money on paper, but they never see this money in their pocket. So sad, that they fire the management. Wait, how can they do that??? Well, the management works for them, and the board, which represents THE SHAREHOLDERS (by the way, shareholders is meant in a general sense, debt also counts, but this is a non-issue for Apple). You just don't get it.
Third paragraph: I actually know what the symbol is, but the rest of the sentence made no sense to me.
Forth paragraph: YES, that's what the market is telling you.
Fifth: OK, I will spell it out for you: do you take responsibility for your actions, and their consequences? Whatever I think of Apple management (my feelings are mixed), I believe that they are men enough to take responsibility, and not to blame their woes (and YES, their share price is a woe) on evil hedge funds, space aliens, and the Cyprus central bank. You, apparently, like to make excuses.
The money the company brings in belongs to... wait for it... the shareholders.
The shareholders don't get to decide whether or not Apple's employees get paid.
So sad, that they fire the management.
Funny how they're not doing that then, huh?
Forth paragraph: YES, that's what the market is telling you.
Then screw the market. I'll go with common sense instead.
Whatever I think of Apple management (my feelings are mixed), I believe that they are men enough to take responsibility, and not to blame their woes (and YES, their share price is a woe) on evil hedge funds…
I don't know that anyone from Apple is doing that. Don't claim they are.
…space aliens…
See, you made that up. You. Don't claim that someone else believes something sane, much less insane.
Perhaps you'd like to try that shoe on the other foot. Investors and Wall Street are divorcing Apple. The basis of my observation is the stock had nosedived from $700 to $400 during the biggest bull market in this century. Use your eyes instead of shooting off your mouth, lkrupp!
Fail, your basis is wrong as per perception of Wall Street which is based on emotion and promises albeit empty with nothing of substance.
The first paragraph and the second paragraph: The money the company brings in belongs to... wait for it... the shareholders. The shareholders are happy if the management uses it to bring in even more money. The shareholders are sad if the company brings in a lot of money on paper, but they never see this money in their pocket. So sad, that they fire the management. Wait, how can they do that??? Well, the management works for them, and the board, which represents THE SHAREHOLDERS (by the way, shareholders is meant in a general sense, debt also counts, but this is a non-issue for Apple). You just don't get it.
There has been no shareholder meeting that has proposed removing the current executive team or the board, nor will there be any time soon.
The shareholders do not own the company's profits, they own a share of the company equity, which is a very different thing.
There has been no shareholder meeting that has proposed removing the current executive team or the board, nor will there be any time soon.
The shareholders do not own the company's profits, they own a share of the company equity, which is a very different thing.
The current team has been in place for a year and a half, and so far the bottom line has been strong, while the share price has been flat (from Jobs' passing the stock is up a little), so there is no reason to ask for the management heads. However, if this (the share price woes, the unexplained gigantic warchest) goes on for another year, people will start getting really upset. Notice that this is more true than, say, at MSFT, where the share price has been stagnant for a decade. Why? Because at MSFT Gates and Ballmer have a very considerable ownership stake in the company, and as long as Gates does not decide that Ballmer is doing a bad job, Ballmer stays. In general, it is curious that Bezos owns an, in effect, controlling stake in AMZN, Page & Brin own the controlling stake in Google, Zuckerberg owns control of FB. Apple is different, in that the management owns close to nothing of the company. It is also different from, say, Yahoo.com, which is small enough that an activist investor (Daniel Loeb) has a lot of say in the direction of the company (the result is that YHOO is up over fifty percent in six months, btw), even if Marissa has no ownership stake.
Comments
Originally Posted by igriv
How are those aliens beaming radio waves at you doing?
No, that sounds exactly like something a corporate shareholder would do…
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
4. The split idea would (a) do nothing and (b) would be an admission of weakness. Notice that Apple's tech brethren GOOG and AMZN have been going onward and upward without any such machinations.
I think there's a ton of FUD driving the stock price down, and once you become a "hated" stock it doesn't take much to trigger a sell off. I'd like to see Apple do more to change this narrative. Maybe Cook and team have something up their sleeves and we'll all be blown away later this year. I hope so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
No, that sounds exactly like something a corporate shareholder would do…
Is that what Kim Jong Un is telling you guys?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
I think there's a ton of FUD driving the stock price down, and once you become a "hated" stock it doesn't take much to trigger a sell off. I'd like to see Apple do more to change this narrative. Maybe Cook and team have something up their sleeves and we'll all be blown away later this year. I hope so.
Now, Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of this hat!
Originally Posted by igriv
Is that what Kim Jong Un is telling you guys?
What in the world is your problem? Either write actual rebuttals or don't expect your posts to stay up, much less you be taken seriously ever again in the future.
Originally Posted by igriv
1. It IS Cook's job to manage shareholder value. It is his ONLY job.
And right off the bat, wrong.
2. Saying "they are considering what to do with the money" does say that they are aware there is a problem
No, nowhere in that does it state or imply anything about a "problem".
3. Handing it out is far from stupid. The Einhorn proposal or a buyback might be more intelligent, that's true, but it does not mean that upping the dividend is stupid.
"Handing it out" ? "upping the dividend". Note the character I used before writing your reply. That way you'll know exactly how far to move the goalposts.
…AMZN have been going onward and upward without any such machinations.
Also without any such profits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
What in the world is your problem? Either write actual rebuttals or don't expect your posts to stay up, much less you be taken seriously ever again in the future.
There are people on this forum that we take seriously?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
What in the world is your problem? Either write actual rebuttals or don't expect your posts to stay up, much less you be taken seriously ever again in the future.
And right off the bat, wrong.
No, nowhere in that does it state or imply anything about a "problem".
"Handing it out" ? "upping the dividend". Note the character I used before writing your reply. That way you'll know exactly how far to move the goalposts.
Also without any such profits.
First paragraph: Why don't you look at the message (your own, no less) I was responding to. Do you think of it as a profound commentary?
Second paragraph: Repeat after me: "I disagree with your assessment". If you keep writing garbage as fact, don't expect your posts to stay up, much less you be taken seriously ever again in the future.
Third paragraph: Whatever. I guess having most of the people paying your salary up in arms does not count as a problem.
Fourth paragraph: WTF are you talking about?
Fifth: Yes, exactly. That's how much people distrust Apple management. Apparently they trust Larry Page a lot more, and Jeff Bezos a lot more still. You don't think of this as a problem, of course. Apple is just a victim of evil hedge fund managers, and the management team are a bunch of fucking genius angels. I bet the dog had a tendency to eat your homework way back in the day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
I think there's a ton of FUD driving the stock price down, and once you become a "hated" stock it doesn't take much to trigger a sell off. I'd like to see Apple do more to change this narrative. Maybe Cook and team have something up their sleeves and we'll all be blown away later this year. I hope so.
I thought Cook would unveil a plan in the last quarter but here we are starting the next one.
For me that doesn't matter... at the moment... I gave it until the end of the year for Cook to prove his worth to me. If he doesn't then I think we can expect the stock to drop into the low 300s. April 23rd will tell us if AAPL will head to the high 300s or the low 500s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit
There are people on this forum that we take seriously?
Touche.
Originally Posted by igriv
Second paragraph: Repeat after me: "I disagree with your assessment". If you keep writing garbage as fact, don't expect your posts to stay up, much less you be taken seriously ever again in the future.
You claimed a CEO has no responsibility but to his shareholders. That's so utterly vacuous that if it needs clarification on why it's wrong you shouldn't be talking about this stuff in the first place.
Third paragraph: Whatever. I guess having most of the people paying your salary up in arms does not count as a problem.
Are you honestly implying that shareholders "pay the salaries" of Apple employees? Not, you know, their ludicrous sales and revenues? The part of the company that actually matters, that is. The part that is an actual company.
Fourth paragraph: WTF are you talking about?
Fine. Don't do the work. It's called "not identical to".
Fifth: Yes, exactly. That's how much people distrust Apple management. Apparently they trust Larry Page a lot more, and Jeff Bezos a lot more still.
So… a company that consistently brings in billions in profits and which is constantly growing its platform is "trusted less" than a company that is posting losses and which has a bunch of loose ends? Sure it is¡
I bet the dog had a tendency to eat your homework way back in the day.
What does this even mean within the context of anything relevant?
You have stated that you believe it would be beneficial for the performance of AAPL if the proportion of stock owned by individuals was increased relative to the proportion owned by institutions. If you don't replace the institutionally owned shares with individual investor owned shares by at least one to one, how are you going to change the relative proportions? I was really asking you to justify your own argument more than making a new one of my own. Call it a straw man if you want, as long as you take ownership.
While we are making citation-free assertions, I would posit that most people who study markets believe stock splits don't accomplish anything.
I fully recognize that you have not said how much a split would help. That is the whole problem with your post and why I replied to it. I think if
you would take the trouble of trying some hypothetical numbers, you would see that any help from attracting micro-investors is going to be negligible to
a company with a market cap the size of Apple. (e.g. one million micro-investors spending $100 per year on AAPL amounts to $100,000,000 or about
.025% of Apple's current market cap)
The qualitative observation that a stock split would attract new investors is not worth much, even if true, if those new investments don't budge the performance
of AAPL. The vehemence with which some people cling to the idea of a stock split gives the impression they feel it is some kind of panacea. It is not.
Google did announce a split back in June 2012, but it has not been executed due to lawsuits over the new shares' lack of voting rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
You claimed a CEO has no responsibility but to his shareholders. That's so utterly vacuous that if it needs clarification on why it's wrong you shouldn't be talking about this stuff in the first place.
Are you honestly implying that shareholders "pay the salaries" of Apple employees? Not, you know, their ludicrous sales and revenues? The part of the company that actually matters, that is. The part that is an actual company.
Fine. Don't do the work. It's called "not identical to".
So… a company that consistently brings in billions in profits and which is constantly growing its platform is "trusted less" than a company that is posting losses and which has a bunch of loose ends? Sure it is¡
What does this even mean within the context of anything relevant?
The first paragraph and the second paragraph: The money the company brings in belongs to... wait for it... the shareholders. The shareholders are happy if the management uses it to bring in even more money. The shareholders are sad if the company brings in a lot of money on paper, but they never see this money in their pocket. So sad, that they fire the management. Wait, how can they do that??? Well, the management works for them, and the board, which represents THE SHAREHOLDERS (by the way, shareholders is meant in a general sense, debt also counts, but this is a non-issue for Apple). You just don't get it.
Third paragraph: I actually know what the symbol is, but the rest of the sentence made no sense to me.
Forth paragraph: YES, that's what the market is telling you.
Fifth: OK, I will spell it out for you: do you take responsibility for your actions, and their consequences? Whatever I think of Apple management (my feelings are mixed), I believe that they are men enough to take responsibility, and not to blame their woes (and YES, their share price is a woe) on evil hedge funds, space aliens, and the Cyprus central bank. You, apparently, like to make excuses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney
Google did announce a split back in June 2012, but it has not been executed due to lawsuits over the new shares' lack of voting rights.
That may be (I actually did not notice it), but my point is that they haven't had a split, and the stock has not been harmed thereby.
I agree with your point...just don't want it tainted
Originally Posted by igriv
The money the company brings in belongs to... wait for it... the shareholders.
The shareholders don't get to decide whether or not Apple's employees get paid.
So sad, that they fire the management.
Funny how they're not doing that then, huh?
Forth paragraph: YES, that's what the market is telling you.
Then screw the market. I'll go with common sense instead.
Whatever I think of Apple management (my feelings are mixed), I believe that they are men enough to take responsibility, and not to blame their woes (and YES, their share price is a woe) on evil hedge funds…
I don't know that anyone from Apple is doing that. Don't claim they are.
…space aliens…
See, you made that up. You. Don't claim that someone else believes something sane, much less insane.
Fail, your basis is wrong as per perception of Wall Street which is based on emotion and promises albeit empty with nothing of substance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
The first paragraph and the second paragraph: The money the company brings in belongs to... wait for it... the shareholders. The shareholders are happy if the management uses it to bring in even more money. The shareholders are sad if the company brings in a lot of money on paper, but they never see this money in their pocket. So sad, that they fire the management. Wait, how can they do that??? Well, the management works for them, and the board, which represents THE SHAREHOLDERS (by the way, shareholders is meant in a general sense, debt also counts, but this is a non-issue for Apple). You just don't get it.
There has been no shareholder meeting that has proposed removing the current executive team or the board, nor will there be any time soon.
The shareholders do not own the company's profits, they own a share of the company equity, which is a very different thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
There has been no shareholder meeting that has proposed removing the current executive team or the board, nor will there be any time soon.
The shareholders do not own the company's profits, they own a share of the company equity, which is a very different thing.
The current team has been in place for a year and a half, and so far the bottom line has been strong, while the share price has been flat (from Jobs' passing the stock is up a little), so there is no reason to ask for the management heads. However, if this (the share price woes, the unexplained gigantic warchest) goes on for another year, people will start getting really upset. Notice that this is more true than, say, at MSFT, where the share price has been stagnant for a decade. Why? Because at MSFT Gates and Ballmer have a very considerable ownership stake in the company, and as long as Gates does not decide that Ballmer is doing a bad job, Ballmer stays. In general, it is curious that Bezos owns an, in effect, controlling stake in AMZN, Page & Brin own the controlling stake in Google, Zuckerberg owns control of FB. Apple is different, in that the management owns close to nothing of the company. It is also different from, say, Yahoo.com, which is small enough that an activist investor (Daniel Loeb) has a lot of say in the direction of the company (the result is that YHOO is up over fifty percent in six months, btw), even if Marissa has no ownership stake.
As for your second sentence, your point is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney
I agree with your point...just don't want it tainted
Fair enough.